:00:09. > :00:12.Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: Did Alex Salmond offer to intervene
:00:12. > :00:17.with the British government in support of Rupert Murdoch's bid to
:00:17. > :00:19.take over BSkyB? The First Minister says he had no direct contact.
:00:19. > :00:24.Opposition parties are demanding he appear before Parliament to explain
:00:24. > :00:27.himself. So who's right? And Rangers still have no preferred
:00:27. > :00:31.bidder and now have hefty sanctions from the Scottish Football
:00:31. > :00:38.Association. Are matters lurching from bad to worse or is there an
:00:38. > :00:40.Good evening. The Leveson Inquiry is rapidly
:00:40. > :00:44.spreading its tentacles into unexpected places. Not only did
:00:44. > :00:46.Jeremy Hunt move to the centre of attention today, so did the First
:00:46. > :00:49.Minister Alex Salmond. Both James Murdoch in his testimony and News
:00:49. > :00:52.Corp emails released as part of the inquiry suggested Mr Salmond
:00:52. > :00:59.offered to support the Murdochs' proposed takeover of the whole of
:00:59. > :01:01.BSkyB. Mr Salmond says he never contacted Mr Hunt on the issue but
:01:01. > :01:11.that hasn't stopped the questions. Here's our political editor Brian
:01:11. > :01:11.
:01:11. > :01:17.Alex Salmond has repeatedly faced criticism either his claimed links
:01:17. > :01:21.with Rupert Murdoch. This controversy centres on the former
:01:21. > :01:25.bid of Mr Murdoch's News Corporation for BSkyB. The issue
:01:25. > :01:29.was raised today at the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics. Mr
:01:29. > :01:33.Murdoch's son, James, denied that the Culture Secretary had acted as
:01:34. > :01:37.a cheerleader for the bid within the UK Government. But he did agree
:01:38. > :01:43.that the company had been seeking support to voices. One of those,
:01:43. > :01:48.apparently, was the First Minister. He had offered to be supportive as
:01:48. > :01:52.a Scottish politician and leader. Now the responsibility had shifted
:01:52. > :01:56.to Mr Hunt, we were in an undertaking phase. Those economic
:01:56. > :02:01.arguments still stood. If you see previously, in other places, Mr
:02:01. > :02:06.Hunt's advisers suggest we should try to find allies, people who can
:02:06. > :02:11.advocate who are not just asked talking. Mr Salmond had already
:02:11. > :02:18.said he thought this might be a good transaction for Scotland.
:02:18. > :02:21.But Mr Murdoch's denied a question that the bid's support for Mr
:02:21. > :02:31.Salmond was in return for favourable coverage in the Scott
:02:31. > :02:32.
:02:32. > :02:37.this gun -- Scottish Sun. The favourable coverage means that
:02:37. > :02:43.Mr Salmond is more willing and more likely to want to call Mr Hunt,
:02:43. > :02:49.quote, whenever we need him to. If the insinuation is that there
:02:49. > :02:52.was any quid pro quo regarding a commercial agenda, I can tell you
:02:52. > :02:58.it is false. The inquiry was told of internal e-
:02:58. > :03:02.mails from Frederic Michel, News Corporation's director affairs, to
:03:02. > :03:06.James Murdoch. In 2010, he referred to economic development and said
:03:06. > :03:12.that Mr Salmond was very keen to also put these issues to Vince
:03:12. > :03:16.Cable, who opposed the BSkyB bid, and have a call with you tomorrow
:03:16. > :03:20.on the matter. He said his team would also brief the Scottish press
:03:20. > :03:28.on the importance of News Corporation for Scotland.
:03:28. > :03:34.When ninth November, he notes that Alex Salmond's a strong ally to put
:03:34. > :03:40.forward. In February 2011, he says, I met with Alex Salmond's adviser
:03:40. > :03:45.to date. He will call Mr Hunt whenever we need him to. He says
:03:45. > :03:50.the Sun is keen to back the SNP at the election. Separately, he as at
:03:50. > :03:55.the end that on the Sky bid, Mr Salmond will make himself available
:03:55. > :03:59.if consultation is launched. Tonight Mr Salmon's denied any
:03:59. > :04:06.wrongdoing. I met BSkyB and talked-about
:04:06. > :04:11.employment in Scotland, but there was never any quid pro quo. There
:04:11. > :04:19.was chat with in News International. They could not be any quid pro quo.
:04:19. > :04:22.The reality is that I never phoned or road to Jeremy Hunt -- all wrote
:04:23. > :04:29.to Jeremy Hunt. The News Corporation bid for BSkyB
:04:29. > :04:31.was abandoned in July last year. Mr Salmond says demands for a
:04:31. > :04:35.statement our stuff and nonsense and he will be available to answer
:04:35. > :04:40.questions at the regular Thursday session in Parliament. He is also
:04:40. > :04:43.willing to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.
:04:43. > :04:45.We asked the First Minister to appear tonight but he was
:04:45. > :04:48.unavailable. We then asked if anyone from the Scottish Government
:04:48. > :04:52.would like to appear, but again no- one was available. We then asked
:04:52. > :04:55.whether anyone from the SNP would like to take part, but again they
:04:55. > :05:02.were unable to do so. I'm joined from Edinburgh by the Liberal
:05:02. > :05:07.Democrat MSP Tavish Scott, and here with me is Labour's Jackie Baillie.
:05:07. > :05:10.You have seen what Alex Salmond had to say tonight. Do you accept it as
:05:10. > :05:14.an explanation? I accept he may not have written,
:05:14. > :05:17.he may not have called, but the question that remains to be
:05:17. > :05:22.answered is whether the offer was made in the first place. For me,
:05:22. > :05:27.this strikes at the very heart of how the SNP do business, this kind
:05:27. > :05:31.of suggestion of backroom deals and shady favours. It is distressing to
:05:31. > :05:37.say the least to find that our First Minister is using his office
:05:37. > :05:43.to offer commercial support for a BSkyB bid at the same time as there
:05:43. > :05:48.seems to be a suggestion in this e- mail that what we have his support
:05:48. > :05:53.from the Sun for the SNP prior to the Scottish elections. If you look
:05:53. > :05:57.at the timing of this, James Murdoch met with Alex Salmond days
:05:57. > :06:02.before the exchange of e-mails, a couple of months before the last
:06:02. > :06:06.Scottish Parliament elections. But for our First Minister to be
:06:06. > :06:12.prepared to intervene with Vince Cable, to intervene with Jeremy
:06:12. > :06:15.Hunt, too, as his adviser put it, call whenever he was needed to,
:06:16. > :06:20.suggests that to me that Alex Salmond was at the beck and call of
:06:20. > :06:28.Rupert Murdoch. Do you accept Alex Salmond's
:06:28. > :06:32.explanation of at -- explanation? I understand the Guardian is saying
:06:32. > :06:40.that there was a core set up to Jeremy Hunt's office, and we will
:06:40. > :06:43.only know when Mr Simon answers questions whether that is true. --
:06:43. > :06:47.Mr summoned. It does seem in one of the mouse
:06:47. > :06:50.that a core has been set up. That does not mean that one actually
:06:50. > :06:54.happened. I agree, but we don't know the
:06:54. > :07:00.answer to these questions. That is why we should here a statement
:07:00. > :07:04.tomorrow. Instead he should be answering these questions. He is
:07:04. > :07:09.going to appear before Lord Leveson himself. Surely he has got
:07:09. > :07:12.something to say to that. Had the QC not asked that question about Mr
:07:12. > :07:17.Salmond's lobbying on behalf of Rupert Murdoch today, none of us
:07:17. > :07:23.would be any wiser. I think we have done ourselves a big service.
:07:23. > :07:31.Parliament deserves a full explanation for Mr Salmond, who is
:07:31. > :07:37.apparently too busy to do that. Do you back that call from the Lib
:07:37. > :07:42.Dems, that Alex summer should appear tomorrow if?
:07:42. > :07:46.If he gives evidence under oath to Leveson Inquiry, we have had
:07:46. > :07:50.misleading statements from the First Minister before. In August
:07:50. > :07:54.the claim to have published all correspondence between herself and
:07:54. > :08:00.the Murdochs. There was no mention of this. That was his opportunity
:08:00. > :08:05.to come clean. He chose to keep that hidden.
:08:05. > :08:12.A spokesman for the Scottish government tonight seems to suggest
:08:12. > :08:16.that Alex Salmond's view is that there were no competition issues
:08:16. > :08:21.and the deal was important for Scotland because of jobs. You might
:08:21. > :08:25.not agree with that, but it is a legitimate point of the two have,
:08:25. > :08:29.isn't it? It is legitimate on jobs if that
:08:29. > :08:33.was the argument that we were actually to believe. But nobody in
:08:33. > :08:36.Scottish politics, nobody in Scotland, believes this is an
:08:36. > :08:42.argument about jobs. This is about Alex Salmond lobbying for Rupert
:08:42. > :08:45.Murdoch. His relationship with Rupert Murdoch, he had tea at his
:08:45. > :08:51.house and we find out from the mouse tonight that he offered to
:08:51. > :08:58.have dinner -- from the e-mails tonight that he offered to have
:08:58. > :09:03.dinner with James Murdoch. We don't know the true extent of salmon's
:09:03. > :09:11.relationship with the Murdoch family. But it goes on and on. It
:09:11. > :09:19.relates to politics. There's plenty of room in this.
:09:19. > :09:24.This is adviser talking to advisers. There's plenty of room for talking
:09:24. > :09:29.up your own game or simply misunderstanding. Somebody says, oh,
:09:29. > :09:33.of course I wish you well and they take that as an endorsement.
:09:33. > :09:36.There's no question of understanding here. You understand
:09:36. > :09:44.the blizzard between the First Minister and his senior special
:09:44. > :09:51.adviser. -- the relationship. There's no doubt in my mind that
:09:51. > :10:01.the offer here was commercial sport that requires support for the BSkyB
:10:01. > :10:04.
:10:04. > :10:12.I quote, he was taken, and this is Harrison, by our commitment to
:10:12. > :10:18.Scotland and Alex and an's desire to support us. It is a strong on
:10:18. > :10:24.which to put forward. -- Alex Salmond's desire.
:10:24. > :10:29.I was taken aback by that one. was shocked!
:10:29. > :10:34.I was trying to think who that might be. If I get called to give
:10:34. > :10:37.evidence, I will. Are you saying that you have no
:10:37. > :10:41.knowledge of any contact between the Lib Dems in Scotland and the
:10:41. > :10:46.Murdoch empire? I have no knowledge of that. I
:10:46. > :10:54.would be more than happy to show my diaries or appear before the
:10:54. > :11:04.inquiry. I wish Mr Salmond would. You lost in the entire period in
:11:04. > :11:04.
:11:05. > :11:08.government last time sucking up to the murders. -- you mock -- you lot
:11:08. > :11:11.spent the entire period in government last time.
:11:12. > :11:17.If Alex Salmond was guilty of simply making the same mistake,
:11:17. > :11:20.that would be one thing. I think he is going further. He is using the
:11:20. > :11:23.office of the First Minister basically to support a commercial
:11:23. > :11:33.bid for BSkyB exchange for party political advantage. I think he
:11:33. > :11:38.If it is a tall possible, the fortunes of Rangers Football Club
:11:38. > :11:45.have taken another turn southwards after the double authorities buying
:11:45. > :11:49.at the club and a post eight transfer ban. The manager and a
:11:49. > :11:56.McCoist claimed this could destroy the club, -- the manager Ally
:11:57. > :12:03.McCoist. As time goes on, the future of
:12:03. > :12:07.Rangers becomes increasingly more precarious. The deadline of
:12:07. > :12:17.announcing any bidder has come and gone twice. Now the SFA has banged
:12:17. > :12:23.the club won and and �60,000, -- find the club �160,000, and stopped
:12:23. > :12:28.them from getting a new player for a year. This stops them getting
:12:28. > :12:32.another buyer. You are now being told that even if you lose players
:12:32. > :12:36.in the summers, which you will, you are not able to invest or bring in
:12:36. > :12:43.new players even if you have funds in available. So you end up with a
:12:44. > :12:49.completely different organisation, heavily reliant on young players.
:12:49. > :12:53.If they cannot bite him new players who can compete in the highest
:12:53. > :12:55.level, it will not be a good investment. Today the
:12:55. > :12:59.administrators released a statement applying their frustration at this
:12:59. > :13:02.latest turn of events. They are appealing against the transfer ban
:13:02. > :13:06.and says the decision is extraordinary. They say it hinders
:13:06. > :13:12.rather than helps any chances of selling of this club as a viable
:13:12. > :13:16.business. Time is running out for Rangers, they say. They have asked
:13:16. > :13:19.the football authorities to be more pragmatic. The SFA's says it is
:13:19. > :13:23.deciding in accordance with its own rules, but the Rangers manager had
:13:23. > :13:29.this to say. This decision could kill our football club, simple as
:13:29. > :13:32.that. Make no mistake, the people have made a decision, they are not
:13:32. > :13:38.totally to blame, I have to tell you, for the death of our football
:13:38. > :13:44.club if it happens. But this particular decision could kill our
:13:45. > :13:48.Football Club. Time has already run out for the former chairman. Jake
:13:48. > :13:58.White has been banned for life from any involvement in Scottish
:13:58. > :14:00.
:14:00. > :14:05.football, and he has been given a fine of �200,000. But the fall-out
:14:05. > :14:10.could travel far wider than Ibrox. As one of Scotland's biggest clubs,
:14:10. > :14:14.Rangers' troubles could cost others dearly. There is another out come
:14:14. > :14:18.which is for the broader game of football in Scotland. It needs good
:14:18. > :14:24.clubs like Rangers, not only them but like them, to be doing well and
:14:24. > :14:28.be healthy. That brings in the TV contract, the gate result. That the
:14:28. > :14:35.-- the TV contract could just fall apart if the Rangers is not playing
:14:35. > :14:39.in the top flight. The clubs are rivals but they are collaborators
:14:39. > :14:42.in the game, they need each other to be healthy. Today's developments
:14:42. > :14:51.will inevitably mean delays in securing the club's future. Time
:14:51. > :14:54.that Rangers can ill-afford. Where are we now? Neil Patey is a
:14:54. > :15:02.football finance expert at Ernst and Young, and Tracey Campbell-Hynd
:15:02. > :15:07.is the founder and owner of TCH Law which specialises in debt recovery.
:15:07. > :15:17.These sanctions have been opposed by the SFA, we apparently have no
:15:17. > :15:18.
:15:18. > :15:22.progress did these bids. Where are we? We have had another major blow.
:15:22. > :15:27.This has added more uncertainty and a delay for the bidders who are
:15:27. > :15:32.considering what they what -- what they might want to play. Also a new
:15:32. > :15:37.bidder would want to restructure the club in the summer, to prevent
:15:37. > :15:44.the loss ranges can do, they cannot do that if they cannot buy new
:15:44. > :15:50.players to replace the expensive players. Are there any legal issues
:15:50. > :15:53.here? How long can you go on being in administration? It can be
:15:53. > :16:00.indefinitely. They have to renew it, but it can be for a very long
:16:00. > :16:03.period of time. Bearing in mind, they are there for the benefit of
:16:03. > :16:13.creditors. It is seeing or baking get back for the creditors. This is
:16:13. > :16:16.something, -- this is something, whether they are in a position as
:16:16. > :16:21.administrators going round to take bids for this club, and his siding
:16:21. > :16:26.he is a preferred bidder or not a preferred bidder. Because the club
:16:26. > :16:30.is owned by crack -- Craig White. That is what they are there to do.
:16:30. > :16:33.They cannot sell without his permission. They have to work
:16:33. > :16:37.towards doing something for the benefit of the creditors. If he
:16:37. > :16:43.does not agree, he has got the right to do that? Certainly from
:16:43. > :16:47.the point of view from the administrators, they have to work
:16:47. > :16:52.towards it, they have to see where the club is going forwards. The
:16:52. > :16:55.creditors have to be considered at all times. Effectively, the
:16:55. > :16:58.administrators are out there and getting the information in, they
:16:58. > :17:04.have to gather as much information as they camped and that is the only
:17:04. > :17:08.way the club is going to go forward one way or another. Whether it be
:17:08. > :17:13.liquidation or another thing, they need to get information. We have
:17:13. > :17:17.talked about this before, I want to make it clear. If they try to sell
:17:17. > :17:22.Rangers as a going concern, the creditors, I E Craig White, would
:17:22. > :17:27.have to agree, but they have a legal right to liquidate the club
:17:27. > :17:33.and he would have their say? From the point of view of a sea of the E,
:17:33. > :17:37.that is what it is. The creditors agree how the club is going to be
:17:37. > :17:42.taken forward. That is all creditors. Obviously Craig White is
:17:42. > :17:46.a large one, and that is the charge issue, it is about the secured
:17:46. > :17:52.creditors. There is a preference of payments that would come out from
:17:52. > :17:58.an administrator through the liquidation. Ordinary creditors are
:17:58. > :18:04.at the bottom end of it. They are at the bottom end of the pecking
:18:04. > :18:08.orders. But the tax office is also involved in that. It is up to the
:18:08. > :18:13.creditors whether it will be a liquidation. This tends to a point
:18:13. > :18:16.with the players. They all took wage cuts. I understood that was
:18:16. > :18:21.time-limited until the end of the season. If they are banned from
:18:21. > :18:25.transfers, and those players do not, because there cannot -- the club
:18:25. > :18:30.cannot pay them, they have the right to what -- walk out and they
:18:30. > :18:33.are the main assets of the club. That is allowed to happen. In what
:18:33. > :18:42.sense does that mean you are acting in the best interest of the
:18:42. > :18:46.creditors? There is a time line looming. That is why the
:18:46. > :18:50.administrators are very keen to try and proceed with a sale and getting
:18:50. > :18:53.up administration, which I do not think is possible, but as close to
:18:53. > :18:58.the date in June as possible. You then get into summer where you will
:18:58. > :19:02.have to let some of those players go. If you can't get a new owner
:19:02. > :19:09.coming in funding the rock -- the last the preferred to. Is
:19:10. > :19:15.depressing image. There is -- that is the looming image. There is this
:19:15. > :19:25.thing, who do the administrators work for? Football and Rangers in
:19:25. > :19:25.
:19:25. > :19:29.particular is -- it is politics with a small p, but that is not
:19:29. > :19:34.what the administrators should be bearing in mind. Their remit is the
:19:34. > :19:39.protection of the creditors, to try and gather as much of the assets of
:19:39. > :19:43.the club as possible. That has been forgotten in a lot of the
:19:43. > :19:48.speculation with regard to the administration as a whole. There
:19:48. > :19:52.are a lot of credit is out there, and a lot of creditors have this as
:19:52. > :19:59.a lifeline. There are a large amount of money is owed, taking
:19:59. > :20:03.away from the HR Owen c and b Craig White issues, there are ordinary
:20:03. > :20:08.creditors there who have to know what they need to do to get their
:20:08. > :20:17.money back. They have the made the formal claims. Just another
:20:17. > :20:20.technical point, these preferred bidders, is any of this meaning
:20:20. > :20:25.for? Why do you have to have a preferred bidder? What does that
:20:25. > :20:28.mean? It is not exclusivity which is a fine point, they are not
:20:28. > :20:31.committing to someone with a written agreement on that. They
:20:31. > :20:36.want a preferred bidder so they can move forward and get a commitment
:20:36. > :20:41.on how much they would be prepared to pay with as little or no
:20:41. > :20:45.conditions attached. One assumes that every bit going in, clause
:20:45. > :20:52.number one says we will take over this club only if you do not get
:20:52. > :20:56.landed with a �70 million bill or more from the tax authorities.
:20:56. > :21:01.have not seen the offer, but I think the offer will be for the
:21:01. > :21:05.company as it comes out of administration clean, so the debts
:21:05. > :21:10.are cleaned up by the compromise agreement. Be you think this club,
:21:10. > :21:14.from what you know of it, is headed for liquidation? The problem that
:21:14. > :21:18.we have is that every day there is a different development, it is very
:21:18. > :21:23.difficult to actually say that. What is your hunch? Difficult to
:21:23. > :21:31.call, it will come down to the position of the eight foreign air -